Somalia

Back in December the wingnut party line was that Ethiopia would be untroubled ("There may be lessons for the United States in Ethiopia’s success") in its conquest of Somalia thanks to their affinity for brutal tactics ("Ethiopia has less concern than the U.S. about civilian casualties") and the absence of a troublesome press corps ("The Ethiopian government is generally less sensitive to media criticism than the U.S. government—and is likely to encounter far less criticism in the first place, since the press traditionally gives short shrift to coverage of Africa") thus guaranteeing success. It turns out, though, that you can have an insurgency anyway just about any time your country invades another one and tries to use its military to prop up a friendly regime on the conquered country's soil.

Photo by Flickr user ctsnow used under a Creative Commons license.

Comments

It's not easy but it's clearly EASIER.

Posted by MrSparkle | June 18, 2007 11:45 AM

Just once, I'd love to hear someone at the Pajama Party quit beating around the bush.

Instead of such constructions as "There may be lessons for the United States in Ethiopia’s success," they would say "I'd like to see the United States emulate Ethiopia's cruelty." Instead of opining that "Ethiopia has less concern than the U.S. about civilian casualties," they would say, "Ethiopia has less concern for human rights or innocent lives than the U.S." Instead of a euphemism like "The Ethiopian government is generally less sensitive to media criticism than the U.S. government," they would say "The Ethiopian government is a ruthless dictatorship that squashes domestic dissent, and it's shame that ours isn't."

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 18, 2007 11:54 AM

Hey, I heard about the world straw shortage, and now we know that Matthew's been hoarding straw for use in his Somalia posts.

Of course, nobody ever said you can't have an insurgency. So the post is a complete straw man. Congrats on Matthew working so hard on knocking it down.

As to the question of whether the Ethiopian invasion in support of the UN and AU-backed Baidoa government has been successful, the answer is undoubtedly yes. After all, before the invasion the Baidoa government wasn't facing insurgents, it was facing being conquered altogether.

I always find funny how Matthew seems to find that an insurgency is somehow worse than a real outright war.

Posted by Al | June 18, 2007 11:56 AM

That looks like a U.S. M-1 tank. What's it doing in Mogadishu?

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | June 18, 2007 12:42 PM

(Is it in Mogadishu?)

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | June 18, 2007 12:43 PM

The Ethiopian government is very sensitive about media criticism, which is why it shut down the Amharic-language newspapers critical of it in 2005. (Criticism is still allowed in the English-language business-oriented press, but I daresay still requires a bit more courage than the average member of Pajamas Media is going to be called upon to muster.)

Posted by Pithlord | June 18, 2007 12:48 PM

Maybe it has something to do that Ethiopia is something like an arch enemy of Somalia. I seem to remember a war or two in the past. Whoever thought it would be good idea to have an old enemy invade another country again MUST have been asleep in '94.

Posted by Sam | June 18, 2007 12:54 PM

What's the guy in the Delta Phi shirt doing with the tank in Mogadishu? When did the DPhi's open up a Mogadishu University chapter?

Posted by Dave | June 18, 2007 1:17 PM

That looks like a U.S. M-1 tank. What's it doing in Mogadishu?

Maybe it got shot down?

Posted by Thunderlips | June 18, 2007 1:53 PM

Sam policing the actions of foreign countries isn't trendy any more.

Posted by MrSparkle | June 18, 2007 2:29 PM

Whoops! I apologise, I seem to have misread what you said.

Posted by MrSparkle | June 18, 2007 2:35 PM

For once, I agree with Al. The argument was never that there would be no insurgency, the argument was that Ethiopia wouldn't be particularly disturbed by one. That strikes me as being valid. As long as a government doesn't mind civilian casualties, and a handful of casualties to its own troops, it can handle insurgents indefinitely.

Posted by AlanC9 | June 18, 2007 3:15 PM

Why are the leftists rooting for Islamo fascists?Why do they want terrorists to win against the civilized world? Why do they propagate lies on behalf of the evil doers? It is mind-boggling.

Posted by Allen Casey | June 18, 2007 4:32 PM

Allen-
Because islamo fascists aren't republicans.

Sk

Posted by Sk | June 18, 2007 4:45 PM

What a strawman. The argument was never that there could not be any insurgency in Somalia because Ethiopia cared less about military death or human rights and didn't have a thriving free press. The argument was that these gave big advantages to Ethiopia in facing the insurgency that was likely to start as soon as their occupation started. These "advantages" considerably reduce the pressure on Addis Ababa to withdraw and allowed them to use force with less restraints. There has been virtually no noticeable actions from the public to attempt to make the government withdraw because of the loss of ethiopian life or because of the army's lack of committment to human rights in Somalia up to now. This means Ethiopia can stay much longer without facing a domestic threat due to the war.

Addis Ababa was in a state of civil war nearly 30 years (that was extremely costly) and only capitulated when Eritrean tanks were in the capital's street. There has been very little change in Ethiopian civil society since then (there were elections but the results were faked, there was a free press but it has been muzzled, there is an opposition but they got beaten up and marginalized). They could likely sustain an occupation for that long in Southern Somalia, provided the US keeps on supporting them which they are happily doing as part of the War On Terror.

Posted by VictorT | June 18, 2007 4:56 PM

Suppose some people suport a quack cure for cancer. I say it won't work. Some months later there is evidence that in fact it is *not* working. Does pointing that out make me "pro-cancer" or "rooting for cancer"?

It is the same way with "invade Middle East countries to suppress the Jihadists." To point out that it isn't working--that in fact it causes resentments that may generate *more* Jihadists--is not to be pro-Jihadist.

Posted by David T | June 18, 2007 4:59 PM

Matthew,

I think your asssment of the situation between Ethiopia and Somalia may be a little over simplistic and too hopeful. The truth of the matter is that Ethiopia is led by a dictator who has less regard its own citizens. Do you know how many are dead and how many are maimed? they are still dying, occasionally they have a sucide killer unleashing death and destruction. I doubt they will be able to come out of the bogged down anytime soon. When they get in they say they are going to come out in few weeks time, look at the fact, it has been 6-months and they are no more closer to getting out now that they were in January. That is honest truth, many of the Ethiopian soldiers are resenting the fact that they are dying for a cause they do not understand. The casue is that the Prime minister is getting a good development income for his closely guarded friends to tap on from the coming funds. That is the truth, they are not winning the war, they are losing the peace. It is much like the Iraq case, easy getting in hard getting out.

Posted by Solomon | June 18, 2007 5:40 PM

Back in December the wingnut party line was that Ethiopia would be untroubled ("There may be lessons for the United States in Ethiopia’s success") in its conquest of Somalia thanks to their affinity for brutal tactics ("Ethiopia has less concern than the U.S. about civilian casualties") and the absence of a troublesome press corps ("The Ethiopian government is generally less sensitive to media criticism than the U.S. government—and is likely to encounter far less criticism in the first place, since the press traditionally gives short shrift to coverage of Africa") thus guaranteeing success.

Oh yes. That approach of paying no attention to the press certainly worked well for the Soviets in both Chechnya and Afganistan. The Chinese in Vietnam. The British in Ireland and South Africa. The Mexican Federal troops during the Mexican revolution. The French in Angola. The Indonesians in East Timor. The Germans in Yugoslavia. And a hundred other examples I could think of.

Posted by Kent | June 18, 2007 8:41 PM

This means Ethiopia can stay much longer without facing a domestic threat due to the war.

And this will help to...what exactly? And the lessons we can learn from the Ethiopians are...what exactly?

That's the point. The right was waxing euphoric about how well the Ethiopians do counterinsurgency because they are more brutal than we are, have less regard for innocent civilians and have less regard for press reports of actual events. How we should study their model, and emulate.

To the point that some (Curtis May in particular) suggested that we airlift Ethiopian troops into Baghdad so that they could do what our troops could not.

Piffle.

Posted by Eric Martin | June 18, 2007 10:55 PM

[quote]And this will help to...what exactly? And the lessons we can learn from the Ethiopians are...what exactly?

That's the point. The right was waxing euphoric about how well the Ethiopians do counterinsurgency because they are more brutal than we are, have less regard for innocent civilians and have less regard for press reports of actual events. How we should study their model, and emulate.[/quote]

Where did I mention that there were lessons to be learned? I simply corrected what Maththew when he claimed that the "wingnut" argument was that Ethiopia's advantages meant there could be no guerilla war. The real argument was that these "advantages" made it easier and less costly for Ethiopia to wage a counter-insurgency war and that they could sustain it for much longer than the US ever could.

If there is a lesson to be learned from this war, it's not that America should emulate Ethiopia because it would be impossible to do so since media is largely out of america's control (even more so since the rise of arabic news channels) and it would mean totally changing America's political system and killing civil society as we know it which is not something that is (or should) happen only to increase our counter-insurgency efficiency.

The lesson is that war by proxy can be incredibly cheap and carry little political risk in the short term. Look at how much media coverage there has been in America on the war in Somalia since it started. Probably less in 6 months than the amount of time they spend on Paris Hilton in a single day.

This "War on Terror" by proxy, using a regional power dependent on foreign aid, has been highly succesful in that it brings close to zero public pressure in America and cost nothing compared to Iraq/Afghanistan. At the same time, it makes Zenawi happy because he knows that America will back him and pay the bills, even if he stops even pretending to respect democracy. This is good for him because he had been coming under pressure from NGOs and international donors to reform. But now that Bush needs him, he know he won't have to.

Posted by VictorT | June 19, 2007 12:08 AM

VictorT wrote:

"This 'War on Terror" by proxy, using a regional power dependent on foreign aid, has been highly succesful in that it brings close to zero public pressure in America and cost nothing compared to Iraq/Afghanistan."

Successful? The way supporting dictators in Iran or Cuba was in the past? No, wait. Perhaps you're thinking about our successful backing of Somalia's own dictator, Siad Barre, who was finally overthrown by Somali rebels in 1991?

Although the long term implications of our support of Ethiopia's brutal campaign in Somalia can't be spelled out just yet, asserting that it has been been a short term success is simply absurd.

In fact, there is enough initial evidence to suggest quite the opposite. More than 700,000 Somalis have been displaced and the country is less peaceful or safe than it was before the invasion.

And the Ethiopian regime's closer military alliance with the US seems to have intensified its repression its political opponents. Like Mobutu before him, the Ethiopian leader is jettisoning democratization and turning into our own very S.O.B.

So much for spreading democracy in order to combat radicalism and political hopelessness in other parts of the world.

Matthew's assertion is valid. Neither Ethiopia's less concern for human rights nor the mass media's disinterest in that war have or will make the Ethiopian army more successful in Somalia than we have been in Iraq.

Posted by AaronR | June 19, 2007 4:24 AM

Is the guy wearing a counterfeit Phi Delts shirt that says Delta Phi or is that legit, and is that pic really from Somalia?

Posted by Walter Lippman | June 19, 2007 6:04 AM

AaronR wrote:

"In fact, there is enough initial evidence to suggest quite the opposite. More than 700,000 Somalis have been displaced and the country is less peaceful or safe than it was before the invasion."

You seem to be confused about what the US government thinks is a "success" in the War on Terror. It's not about keeping every country in the planet safe and stable. It's about fighting islamic groups, dismantling them and preventing them from plotting any terrorist attack on american civilians.

The fact is that Ethiopia is doing these things wonderfully, for little money and in a way that brings no political pressure to Bush at home.

"Although the long term implications of our support of Ethiopia's brutal campaign in Somalia can't be spelled out just yet, asserting that it has been been a short term success is simply absurd."

The long term implications for the US will be very small. Somali resentment in the south will be mainly focused on Daroods and Ethiopia, which have been their historic enemies.

Had Bush not done anything in Somalia, he would've been under intense pressure at home to do something about this Taliban-like regime there. People have been fed the line that these islamist regime are plotting to make another 9/11. Bush has totally avoided this pressure, at little cost. That's a short-term success. And as mentioned above, I don't believe there'll be that many long-term consequences.

Anyway, I'm off. We're talking past each other.

Posted by VictorT | June 19, 2007 7:49 AM

I see many of the people here know what they are talking about. Those who think this is "a war on terror" may be mis informed. The Somalis are not like the Afghans, they are different in ever aspect of life except they both worship to "Mohammad." The Somalis are Africans and poor, historically insignificant compare to the Afghans. The only reason they supported the Islamic movement is becasue that is the only factor that binds all Somalis. They are ethnic minded people, they believe in clan and sub-clan that has been the main problem for the Somalis, they are not religion fanatics. Majority Somalis supported the Islamic movement because they are tired of living under warlords in a fragmanted state with no real and legitimate representation in the international arena.

You can ask Somalis in Diaspora they will all tell you that they are not too religious of a peaople, the only way they approved the Islamic group to control the country is because they wanted a government/passport that says Somalia. What the Bush administration did was wrong. America could have controlled Somalia with no middleman (Ethiopians). All the Somalis wanted was a recognition, and by recognizing the islamic regime that came about could have been controlled by economic incentives. They have nothing, their lives have been destroyed by 15 years of conflict. There was no reason to unleash the hound dogs against them, unfortunately the Iraq "blowback" has forced the Bush administration to use invisible hands to demolish Somalia. I bet you all, there will be a heafty price to pay for the wrong thinking. The Somalis are saying let there be peace and the Bush administration is preventing that peace from coming to be. Surprisingly, the Ethiopians like to be there as they have their own problems at home. The Ethiopian prime minister (Crime Monster known by many Ethiopians) came to power by rigging the election. He has imprisoned all the main opposition party leaders. This is the most undemocractic practice the Bush administration continue to support, for the Ethiopian Crime Monster Somalia has been "manna from heaven." He will stay in Somalia for as long as required by the Bush administration, getting paid makes his stay in Somalia sweeter. He never expected to be paid for marching into Somalia, he was happy to volunteer for an exchange of the Bush administration does not bother him with the jailed opposition leaders.

As far as Somalians are concerned three reconciliation meetings have been postponed. The reason is that the Ethiopians are preventing the resolution to take place. Reason: they are happy to be volunteering for the Bush adminstration. Once Bush's term is over theyare hopping to continue with the incentives whoever come to the scene. The cia is making the case for them, now the rush to form "Africom" is a testimony that the assistance will go beyond the Bush administration. As for the Somalis, they have no choice but to live under the current uncertainty for the near future; they hope the constant suicide killers threate would diminish as time go by.

Posted by Solomon | June 19, 2007 12:41 PM

Why do you analyse it only from America’s point of view, humanity is at stake here…human beings crave for democracy and they deserve one. Both the short tem and long- term consequences are definitely bad and gloomy (at leas for Ethiopian people). America’s blessing to this war gives the Zenawi regime confidence to advance its operation adding to the already dwindling human right record. It is just another Mobutoo in the making and America will have to deal with him sooner than latter. You have no idea, how much hatred America’s double standard is inducing from the over 70 million Ethiopians. I think a ‘strategy’ prevails only and as long as it is devised to serve fair ideas…otherwise truth will one day find its way out

Posted by Abebe | June 19, 2007 1:00 PM

victorT ... who told you that the Islamist are terrorist? Just the way we were told that Saddam has WMD? ... and went to war sucrificed thousands of innocent Americans? Please think through this. Just what you would do if it was you mom facing the brutality of Meles of Ethioia just the way moms in Ethiopia facing right now, thier kids being shot before their eyes. I am sure that is not something we want to learn from this guy. It is beyond comprehension and this guys has no place for human decency.

Posted by TesfaL | June 19, 2007 1:06 PM

Where did I mention that there were lessons to be learned?

Matt mentioned it, and you accused him of beating up on a strawman. Yet many commenters actually made that exact claim.

The real argument was that these "advantages" made it easier and less costly for Ethiopia to wage a counter-insurgency war and that they could sustain it for much longer than the US ever could.

There were many "real" arguments. Some were that we could learn lessons from Ethiopia's brutality and disregard for international norms and media attention.

The lesson is that war by proxy can be incredibly cheap and carry little political risk in the short term. Look at how much media coverage there has been in America on the war in Somalia since it started. Probably less in 6 months than the amount of time they spend on Paris Hilton in a single day.

Political risk, perhaps. But strategic risk? Risk of blowback/blame for outcomes? I care less for domestic political expediency when the outcomes don't favor our actual interests.

At the same time, it makes Zenawi happy because he knows that America will back him and pay the bills, even if he stops even pretending to respect democracy. This is good for him because he had been coming under pressure from NGOs and international donors to reform. But now that Bush needs him, he know he won't have to.

That should make us some friends in the Ethiopian population. BTW - we were already giving Meles so many arms that he loved us anyway.

It's about fighting islamic groups, dismantling them and preventing them from plotting any terrorist attack on american civilians.

The fact is that Ethiopia is doing these things wonderfully, for little money and in a way that brings no political pressure to Bush at home.

How so? According to most estimates, they haven't neutralized the terrorist threat, just moved it. Nor have they prevented plots. Large swathes of Somalia are still suitable for such purposes. Also, there is a radicalization of local elements that had not previously been so disposed. That is a setback.

The long term implications for the US will be very small. Somali resentment in the south will be mainly focused on Daroods and Ethiopia, which have been their historic enemies.

I disagree. We will become associated with the brutality of the Ethiopians, and for the chaos that will follow. For little to nothing in return.

Posted by Eric Martin | June 19, 2007 2:26 PM

There have already been consequences:

"There has been an upsurge in violent attacks off Somalia, with some taking place around 210 miles away, affecting victim vessels which have nothing to do with the Somali trade. Unless the interim government of Somalia can live up to its promises of controlling maritime piracy and reining in the local militias, we fear the attacks will reach unprecedented levels. They are going further and further than before."

Last June, the Union of Islamic Courts took control of southern Somalia, but they were routed in December by Ethiopian-backed forces. Under the UIC, piracy declined. Capt Mukundan explained: "The UIC made an announcement that anyone caught committing piracy would be dealt with under sharia law. The attacks died down."

In one instance last October, he says, the UIC gave chase after pirates took a cargo vessel. They captured the pirates and returned the ship to its owners. "We have not seen action of this kind in Somalia for decades," he says. "But the interim government took control and the old militias regained their power and the attacks have started again."

Posted by blowback | June 19, 2007 3:21 PM

VictorT Wrote:

"You seem to be confused about what the US government thinks is a 'success' in the War on Terror. It's not about keeping every country in the planet safe and stable. It's about fighting islamic groups, dismantling them and preventing them from plotting any terrorist attack on american civilians."

So now Islam and terror have become one and the same? Are you sure you're talking about the Bush administration or your own views? At any rate, it's one thing to talk about what the Bush administration's version of warped reality. It's entirely different to address Matt's argument. The thrust of Matt's argument is that the administration's and the wingnut's presupposition is based on wishful or seriously flawed thinking. And you seem to either agree with that thinking or you are sympathetic to it.

"The long term implications for the US will be very small. Somali resentment in the south will be mainly focused on Daroods and Ethiopia, which have been their historic enemies."

The Somalis, Ethiopians and the rest of the world understand who's behind what. Your assertion that Somali resentment will "be mainly focused" on one of their own clans and the Ethiopians is wishful- thinking on your part.

Posted by AaronR | June 19, 2007 6:17 PM

Bush's war has led to the death of more than 70,000 civilians. ethiopia's war has led to dead of around 1,500 for pro-islamic sources and around 400 for pro-somalia government sources.

there are many videos of british and american forces target practicing on iraqi civilians. many videos of american forces shooting at civilians while fighting insurgents.

so 70,000 civilians is smaller than on average 1000????
Bush should be charged for war crimes and we all know it. both wars are illegal. but your attempt to make american soldiers more humane than ethiopians soldiers is against the reality.

Bush to the Hague!

Posted by tk | June 20, 2007 1:23 PM